24 June 2007
Apocalypto for the Neo-Cons
With the Senate and House back under Democratic Party control, the much-touted troop surge turning in a casualty surge, Rummie consigned to the dustbin of history, Wolfie fired from his cushy World Bank job, Libby transformed from a Cheney rooster into a feather duster, Poodle Tony [Blair] politically euthanased by his party and just maybe Chi Hua-Hua John [Howard] to be booted in his backside by voters, things are going really well for Dubya and his neo-con partners-in-war-crimes.
Even as the great neo-con dream slowly morphs into the putrid nightmare that it really is, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of the monstrous crimes committed under the guise of "democracy and freedom." A most disturbing and morally repugnant revelation to surface recently is Seymour Hersh's article about a patriotic and honourable US general who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal. Hersh's article must be read to understand some of the terribly malignant transformations wrought by the neo-cons.
General Taguba's treatment by factions in a Pentagon politicised by the neo-cons was in a word, disgraceful. Former Chief of Army, General Eric Shinseki, suffered similar treatment following his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on the eve of the Iraq invasion. So it is clear that like the broader American society under neo-con "leadership," hallmark values of a democracy such as honour, integrity, compassion, fairness etc have been twisted into Orwellian caricatures of the exact opposite in the uniformed services.
Taguba says it best in Hersh's article:
"There was no doubt in my mind that this stuff—the explicit images—was gravitating upward. It was standard operating procedure to assume that this had to go higher. The President had to be aware of this."
He said that Rumsfeld, his senior aides, and the high-ranking generals and admirals who stood with him as he misrepresented what he knew about Abu Ghraib had failed the nation.
"From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."
What was done in the name of "democracy and freedom" has been no different to what Stalin and Hitler did.
For those who deny the moral equivalence (because America is always morally right, of course), I say put yourselves to the test by using the same Nuremburg war crimes trial standards the US and its allies used to judge the Nazis. Go on, be all that you claim to be by proving what's good for the goose is equally good for the gander.
To quote Will Durant,
"A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
Even as the great neo-con dream slowly morphs into the putrid nightmare that it really is, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of the monstrous crimes committed under the guise of "democracy and freedom." A most disturbing and morally repugnant revelation to surface recently is Seymour Hersh's article about a patriotic and honourable US general who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal. Hersh's article must be read to understand some of the terribly malignant transformations wrought by the neo-cons.
General Taguba's treatment by factions in a Pentagon politicised by the neo-cons was in a word, disgraceful. Former Chief of Army, General Eric Shinseki, suffered similar treatment following his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on the eve of the Iraq invasion. So it is clear that like the broader American society under neo-con "leadership," hallmark values of a democracy such as honour, integrity, compassion, fairness etc have been twisted into Orwellian caricatures of the exact opposite in the uniformed services.
Taguba says it best in Hersh's article:
"There was no doubt in my mind that this stuff—the explicit images—was gravitating upward. It was standard operating procedure to assume that this had to go higher. The President had to be aware of this."
He said that Rumsfeld, his senior aides, and the high-ranking generals and admirals who stood with him as he misrepresented what he knew about Abu Ghraib had failed the nation.
"From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."
What was done in the name of "democracy and freedom" has been no different to what Stalin and Hitler did.
For those who deny the moral equivalence (because America is always morally right, of course), I say put yourselves to the test by using the same Nuremburg war crimes trial standards the US and its allies used to judge the Nazis. Go on, be all that you claim to be by proving what's good for the goose is equally good for the gander.
To quote Will Durant,
"A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
Labels: blair, bush, cheney, hitler, howard, iraq, libby, neo-conservatives, rumsfeld, stalin, surge, taguba, wolfowitz
12 February 2007
John Howard's hubris
Australian PM John Howard stunned many people on both sides of the Pacific with his ferocious attack on US Democratic presidential nomination hopeful, Barack Obama. In one fell swoop, Howard has probably helped to harden US and possibly Australian public opinion against Bush's Iraqi disaster rather than help his beseiged master in the White House.
Not only that, imagine the knives that would be out for Howard were he to win re-election in Australia while a Democratic Party ruled both the Congress and White House! Chi Hua-Hua John will surely get booted up his rear end by the rightly outraged Democrats.
In a reverse incident some years back, many Australians were angered when a Bush crony, the then US ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, saw fit to tell Australians that voting for the then Labor Party opposition leader, Mark Latham, would be a disaster for the country. Australians on both sides of politics regarded Schieffer's intervention as arrogant interference in Australia's domestic politics.
Howard's bemusing outburst against Obama is fascinating for its possible motives. Let's be clear, Obama is just one of the majority of US voters, presidential hopefuls, senators and congressmen who oppose America's continuing involvement in Iraq. For example, even Republican senator John Warner (one time secretary for the navy) is opposed to the troop escalation and questions continuing involvement in Iraq.
So what on earth prompted Howard to single out Obama and not for example, Hillary Clinton - who has also pledged to bring US troops home? I think the answer lies in Obama's broad-based bipartisan appeal to US voters. His charisma and perceived sincerity project much greater gravitas and credibility than his brief government experience would suggest.
Howard quite rightly perceived that Obama's views would play very well to a nation cynical about long-time politicians, and therefore have great capacity to shift public opinion even more resolutely against Bush and his policies. Were this to happen, then anyone strongly associated with the war-criminal would also be similarly discredited in the eyes of their own voters.
Let's deconstruct Howard into the hypocrite that he is, shall we? As the BBC reported,
"Mr Howard said any withdrawal of US troops by March 2008 - the date Mr Obama believes should be set - would mean defeat for Washington.
And of course last but not least, if Iraq is so vital to Australia's national security, then Howard should have far more than the paltry 1400 Australian troops in Iraq, and they should be in the Baghdad frontline instead of the safe southern province. Better still, Howard should demonstrate the courage of his apparent convictions by getting his sons into the army (instead of one working for the US Republican Party), and ensuring they serve in Baghdad. It's all about leadership by example, Chi Hua-Hua John.
Instead, what do we see? Bush's little lap dog yaps from the sidelines, committing very little to his bullshit. What a strange and twisted set of moral values Chi Hua-Hua John possesses.
So how are Australian voters likely to react to Howard's hypocritical dummy spit?
What about the Howard regime's economic management credentials? In the important swing states of Victoria and New South Wales, mortgage defaults are sky-rocketing due to recent interest rate increases. Mortgagee-in-possession sales have strongly affected the swing voters who gave Howard his last election victory.
And now that these voters have lost their homes, they are certainly feeling less wealthy than before. If my observations of these voters are correct (again see False dawn or a real sea change?), then Howard's economic management credentials have a stake through the heart as far as these voters are concerned. So if Obama rings true with US voters on Iraq and it flows through to Australian voters, then Howard's two advantages over his Labor rival Kevin Rudd, would be neutralised.
A final possible motive for Howard's attack on Obama, is that he fears a parallel appeal with Australian voters in the Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd. Since Rudd's ascension as leader of the opposition, Howard has been focussing on the former's lack of government experience. Indeed, if Howard can successfully play up voter fears about Rudd's inexperience, then voters are likely to re-elect the devil they know rather than the acolyte they don't know.
On the other hand, if voters see Rudd's inexperience in the same positive light as Obama's - ie the cleanskin untarnished by cynical power broker plays in dim backrooms, then Howard would represent all that is bad about the old ways.
The coming federal election will be a genuine "at-a-crossroad" experience for the country. While there's much to dislike about Rudd, there's even more to dislike about Howard.
Not only that, imagine the knives that would be out for Howard were he to win re-election in Australia while a Democratic Party ruled both the Congress and White House! Chi Hua-Hua John will surely get booted up his rear end by the rightly outraged Democrats.
In a reverse incident some years back, many Australians were angered when a Bush crony, the then US ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, saw fit to tell Australians that voting for the then Labor Party opposition leader, Mark Latham, would be a disaster for the country. Australians on both sides of politics regarded Schieffer's intervention as arrogant interference in Australia's domestic politics.
Howard's bemusing outburst against Obama is fascinating for its possible motives. Let's be clear, Obama is just one of the majority of US voters, presidential hopefuls, senators and congressmen who oppose America's continuing involvement in Iraq. For example, even Republican senator John Warner (one time secretary for the navy) is opposed to the troop escalation and questions continuing involvement in Iraq.
So what on earth prompted Howard to single out Obama and not for example, Hillary Clinton - who has also pledged to bring US troops home? I think the answer lies in Obama's broad-based bipartisan appeal to US voters. His charisma and perceived sincerity project much greater gravitas and credibility than his brief government experience would suggest.
Howard quite rightly perceived that Obama's views would play very well to a nation cynical about long-time politicians, and therefore have great capacity to shift public opinion even more resolutely against Bush and his policies. Were this to happen, then anyone strongly associated with the war-criminal would also be similarly discredited in the eyes of their own voters.
Let's deconstruct Howard into the hypocrite that he is, shall we? As the BBC reported,
"Mr Howard said any withdrawal of US troops by March 2008 - the date Mr Obama believes should be set - would mean defeat for Washington.
He said that defeat for the US would end hopes for peace in the Palestinian Territories and cause widespread destabilisation in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan."
Well, let's see now. If Chi Hua-Hua Howard was really so concerned about stability in the Middle East, then he would have urged his partner in war crimes not to invade Iraq under the bullshit cover of non-existent NBC weapons. Saudi Arabia and Jordan were a whole lot less jittery when Saddam Hussein was in power - counter-balancing Iran. But after turning Iraq into rubble, Team Neo-Con opened the door for Iran to fill the vacuum.
And of course last but not least, if Iraq is so vital to Australia's national security, then Howard should have far more than the paltry 1400 Australian troops in Iraq, and they should be in the Baghdad frontline instead of the safe southern province. Better still, Howard should demonstrate the courage of his apparent convictions by getting his sons into the army (instead of one working for the US Republican Party), and ensuring they serve in Baghdad. It's all about leadership by example, Chi Hua-Hua John.
Instead, what do we see? Bush's little lap dog yaps from the sidelines, committing very little to his bullshit. What a strange and twisted set of moral values Chi Hua-Hua John possesses.
So how are Australian voters likely to react to Howard's hypocritical dummy spit?
In an earlier post, I observed (False dawn or real sea change?) that Australian and US voters are more similar to each other in their behaviour, compared to their British counterparts. And although Australian voters have proven they won't vote a prime minister out of office on the grounds of moral turpitude, a strengthening of voter perceptions that the Iraqi war is immoral undermines Howard's self-proclaimed national security credentials.
As Howard himself recently claimed, the Coalition government is more trusted than the Labor opposition on economic management and national security. But if Obama hardens US voter sentiment against Bush's policies, Australian voters could similarly react by increasing their distrust of Howard on national security issues.What about the Howard regime's economic management credentials? In the important swing states of Victoria and New South Wales, mortgage defaults are sky-rocketing due to recent interest rate increases. Mortgagee-in-possession sales have strongly affected the swing voters who gave Howard his last election victory.
And now that these voters have lost their homes, they are certainly feeling less wealthy than before. If my observations of these voters are correct (again see False dawn or a real sea change?), then Howard's economic management credentials have a stake through the heart as far as these voters are concerned. So if Obama rings true with US voters on Iraq and it flows through to Australian voters, then Howard's two advantages over his Labor rival Kevin Rudd, would be neutralised.
A final possible motive for Howard's attack on Obama, is that he fears a parallel appeal with Australian voters in the Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd. Since Rudd's ascension as leader of the opposition, Howard has been focussing on the former's lack of government experience. Indeed, if Howard can successfully play up voter fears about Rudd's inexperience, then voters are likely to re-elect the devil they know rather than the acolyte they don't know.
On the other hand, if voters see Rudd's inexperience in the same positive light as Obama's - ie the cleanskin untarnished by cynical power broker plays in dim backrooms, then Howard would represent all that is bad about the old ways.
The coming federal election will be a genuine "at-a-crossroad" experience for the country. While there's much to dislike about Rudd, there's even more to dislike about Howard.
Labels: bush, chi hua-hua, clinton, crony, democratic party, destabilisation, howard, iraq, lap dog, obama, republican, schieffer
09 November 2006
False dawn or real sea change?
By now, it seems clear that the US Democrat party has reclaimed control of the House of Representatives and provisional control of the Senate; after 12 long years of Republican domination. While on the surface much has been made of the Iraq disaster being the principle reason for the Republicans being booted out, a BBC report suggests domestic issues were strong reasons in many states.
Traditional Republican heartland voters seem to have cast their ballots with eyes on the economy and the sex and corruption scandals afflicting mostly Republican congressional representatives in both houses. In the case of the latter, the moral hypocrisy obviously reached intolerable levels for many diehard Republicans. In the case of the former, the heartland voters' sense of standing still economically despite the ruling elite becoming even more insanely wealthy, had finally broken through into their consciousness.
But an important point to note is that for many heartland voters, Iraq was less of an issue than good old personal economic interest. Nothing wrong with that. Except when your country is involved in an illegal war of aggression, THAT should be a real moral issue taking highest priority.
And in other cases where Iraq was the issue, most of the voters' concerns revolved around the war being unwinnable, mismanaged or costing too many US casualties. You seldom hear concerns about the original immorality and illegality of the war. Yet it is these issues that are the underlying drivers of global opposition to US policies.
As an aside, remember how Team Neo-Con and its supporters love to label war critics as un-American if they were US citizens, and anti-American if they were foreigners? Well now that the majority of US citizens have rejected Bush and the neo-con cabal, is this majority now un-American too? Or are the neo-cons the real un-American traitors guilty of subverting the constitutional foundations of their country?
Will the return of the Democrats warrant a change in negative world sentiment against the US? I think the answer depends not only on whether a military withdrawal from Iraq occurs but also if America's claim to being a real democracy plays out in holding Team Neo-Con accountable for its moral and war crimes.
If the new US Congress has the moral fibre to investigate and prosecute the likes of Big Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and General Geoffrey Miller (the culprit directly responsible for Abu Ghraib) for their crimes, then you don't have to be a Neo-Con Einstein to realise the world will get the message that true accountability exists in an American democracy.
This of course, begs the question for what crimes should the Neo-Con cabal be charged? Well, the last time I checked, it is still a war crime to prosecute unprovoked wars of aggression unsanctioned by the UN Security Council. And to test what's good for the goose is good for the gander, the same criteria used by the victorious Allies (of whom the US was one) at the Nuremburg Trials should be applied.
Remember that Hitler and his henchmen committed one of many war crimes when they fabricated an excuse (code named Operation Himmler) to invade Poland in September 1939. There is no difference between what the Nazis did then and what Team Neo-Con did in March 2003. So if ever the new US Congress wanted to prove that their notion of democracy is more than myth and much methane, then they should start cleaning house in earnest. That would silence critics and doubters immediately.
What are the implications for Poodle Tony?
Let's remember that the more highly principled British voters were the first to register their disgust with Blair involving them in an illegal war. They did so even after their American and Australian counterparts actually rewarded their respective leaders for involving them in the same illegal war (see "Blair bleeds a little more").
British voters disciplined Blair by cutting his parliamentary majority from 167 to 66 seats in May 2005. And the poodle has little choice but to relinquish office to Gordon Brown next year, after much pressure from his party colleagues to get out.
In contrast, US voters not only re-elected Big Dubya, they also increased his share of the vote. Likewise in Australia, voters not only returned Chi Hua-hua John to office, they also gave him control of the upper and lower houses of parliament. In short, Australian and American voters appear to be more similar than British voters.
This now brings me to Chi Hua-hua John.
Despite recent polls now showing that a majority of voters think he's a liar, he still enjoys a relatively high rating as preferred leader over the astoundingly unimpressive Opposition leader, Kim Beazley. While this is more a reflection on Beazley than on Howard, it also says a lot about the heartland voter in Australia.
Iraq is simply not a vote losing issue in Australia because the country hasn't suffered any direct casualties in battle. Were Australian soldiers to return home in body bags, then like their US cousins, heartland voters would become concerned over military casualties BUT not over Iraqi casualties. They've had plenty of opportunities to express concern over Iraqi civilian casualties from March 2003 but they weren't deterred from re-electing Chi Hua-hua John in a landslide.
What are we to make of this? The answer lies in understanding how Chi Hua-hua John won the election in November 2004. This self-proclaimed statesman cynically played racial and religious cards to exploit latent racism and xenophobia unhappily rife in many heartland voters.
On the eve of the election, Howard falsely claimed that a boatload of Middle-Eastern asylum seekers (ironically Iraqis fleeing the war in Iraq!) were throwing their children overboard in a vain attempt to stop a Navy ship from towing them out to international waters. He infamously said that these weren't the sort of people fit to enter Australia and that he wouldn't be surprised if some were terrorists.
Note that when Howard made these claims, he had already been informed by the then acting Chief of Defence Forces, Air Marshal Angus Houston, that the claims of children being thrown overboard were simply untrue. But of course, this didn't stop the self-proclaimed US deputy sheriff from smearing and demonising a boatload of people fleeing from a war he helped to start.
Uttering these disgraceful lies boosted his security and "tough on terrorists" image. This played very well to a heartland rife with resurgent racism and xenophobia, and so these voters went on to deliver a landslide victory to this odious character. How's that for a stunning demonstration of the "fair go" cultural value Chi Hua-hua John now demands newcomers adopt if they wish to become citizens and permanent residents?
So without Australian military casualties, what will unseat Chi Hua-hua John? I'm sorry to say that it'll be crass personal economic interest on the part of the voter. In the absence of a moral imperative driving voting decisions, it is most often the economic imperative that will dominate. In such situations, only when people lose jobs in a recession or lose homes when interest rates are too high, do governments lose office.
If inflation continues unabated and the Reserve Bank of Australia is forced to increase interest rates a few more times closer to the next election around November 2007, there will be a good chance Australian voters will punish Howard. Whether they do so sufficiently for him to lose office remains to be seen.
But they have clearly demonstrated that illegal wars and immoral leaders take a back seat to good old personal economic interest.
Traditional Republican heartland voters seem to have cast their ballots with eyes on the economy and the sex and corruption scandals afflicting mostly Republican congressional representatives in both houses. In the case of the latter, the moral hypocrisy obviously reached intolerable levels for many diehard Republicans. In the case of the former, the heartland voters' sense of standing still economically despite the ruling elite becoming even more insanely wealthy, had finally broken through into their consciousness.
But an important point to note is that for many heartland voters, Iraq was less of an issue than good old personal economic interest. Nothing wrong with that. Except when your country is involved in an illegal war of aggression, THAT should be a real moral issue taking highest priority.
And in other cases where Iraq was the issue, most of the voters' concerns revolved around the war being unwinnable, mismanaged or costing too many US casualties. You seldom hear concerns about the original immorality and illegality of the war. Yet it is these issues that are the underlying drivers of global opposition to US policies.
As an aside, remember how Team Neo-Con and its supporters love to label war critics as un-American if they were US citizens, and anti-American if they were foreigners? Well now that the majority of US citizens have rejected Bush and the neo-con cabal, is this majority now un-American too? Or are the neo-cons the real un-American traitors guilty of subverting the constitutional foundations of their country?
Will the return of the Democrats warrant a change in negative world sentiment against the US? I think the answer depends not only on whether a military withdrawal from Iraq occurs but also if America's claim to being a real democracy plays out in holding Team Neo-Con accountable for its moral and war crimes.
If the new US Congress has the moral fibre to investigate and prosecute the likes of Big Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and General Geoffrey Miller (the culprit directly responsible for Abu Ghraib) for their crimes, then you don't have to be a Neo-Con Einstein to realise the world will get the message that true accountability exists in an American democracy.
This of course, begs the question for what crimes should the Neo-Con cabal be charged? Well, the last time I checked, it is still a war crime to prosecute unprovoked wars of aggression unsanctioned by the UN Security Council. And to test what's good for the goose is good for the gander, the same criteria used by the victorious Allies (of whom the US was one) at the Nuremburg Trials should be applied.
Remember that Hitler and his henchmen committed one of many war crimes when they fabricated an excuse (code named Operation Himmler) to invade Poland in September 1939. There is no difference between what the Nazis did then and what Team Neo-Con did in March 2003. So if ever the new US Congress wanted to prove that their notion of democracy is more than myth and much methane, then they should start cleaning house in earnest. That would silence critics and doubters immediately.
What are the implications for Poodle Tony?
Let's remember that the more highly principled British voters were the first to register their disgust with Blair involving them in an illegal war. They did so even after their American and Australian counterparts actually rewarded their respective leaders for involving them in the same illegal war (see "Blair bleeds a little more").
British voters disciplined Blair by cutting his parliamentary majority from 167 to 66 seats in May 2005. And the poodle has little choice but to relinquish office to Gordon Brown next year, after much pressure from his party colleagues to get out.
In contrast, US voters not only re-elected Big Dubya, they also increased his share of the vote. Likewise in Australia, voters not only returned Chi Hua-hua John to office, they also gave him control of the upper and lower houses of parliament. In short, Australian and American voters appear to be more similar than British voters.
This now brings me to Chi Hua-hua John.
Despite recent polls now showing that a majority of voters think he's a liar, he still enjoys a relatively high rating as preferred leader over the astoundingly unimpressive Opposition leader, Kim Beazley. While this is more a reflection on Beazley than on Howard, it also says a lot about the heartland voter in Australia.
Iraq is simply not a vote losing issue in Australia because the country hasn't suffered any direct casualties in battle. Were Australian soldiers to return home in body bags, then like their US cousins, heartland voters would become concerned over military casualties BUT not over Iraqi casualties. They've had plenty of opportunities to express concern over Iraqi civilian casualties from March 2003 but they weren't deterred from re-electing Chi Hua-hua John in a landslide.
What are we to make of this? The answer lies in understanding how Chi Hua-hua John won the election in November 2004. This self-proclaimed statesman cynically played racial and religious cards to exploit latent racism and xenophobia unhappily rife in many heartland voters.
On the eve of the election, Howard falsely claimed that a boatload of Middle-Eastern asylum seekers (ironically Iraqis fleeing the war in Iraq!) were throwing their children overboard in a vain attempt to stop a Navy ship from towing them out to international waters. He infamously said that these weren't the sort of people fit to enter Australia and that he wouldn't be surprised if some were terrorists.
Note that when Howard made these claims, he had already been informed by the then acting Chief of Defence Forces, Air Marshal Angus Houston, that the claims of children being thrown overboard were simply untrue. But of course, this didn't stop the self-proclaimed US deputy sheriff from smearing and demonising a boatload of people fleeing from a war he helped to start.
Uttering these disgraceful lies boosted his security and "tough on terrorists" image. This played very well to a heartland rife with resurgent racism and xenophobia, and so these voters went on to deliver a landslide victory to this odious character. How's that for a stunning demonstration of the "fair go" cultural value Chi Hua-hua John now demands newcomers adopt if they wish to become citizens and permanent residents?
So without Australian military casualties, what will unseat Chi Hua-hua John? I'm sorry to say that it'll be crass personal economic interest on the part of the voter. In the absence of a moral imperative driving voting decisions, it is most often the economic imperative that will dominate. In such situations, only when people lose jobs in a recession or lose homes when interest rates are too high, do governments lose office.
If inflation continues unabated and the Reserve Bank of Australia is forced to increase interest rates a few more times closer to the next election around November 2007, there will be a good chance Australian voters will punish Howard. Whether they do so sufficiently for him to lose office remains to be seen.
But they have clearly demonstrated that illegal wars and immoral leaders take a back seat to good old personal economic interest.
Labels: anti-american, cabal, cheney, condi rice, corruption, feith, geoffrey miller, iraq, john howard, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, perle, rumsfeld, tony blair, un-american, war crime, wolfowitz
11 September 2006
The day the whole world changed...for Iraqis
As the fifth anniversary of the WTC attack rolls around; accompanied by the usual narcissistic commemorations in the US; spare a thought for weak, or humble or innocent Iraqis who were crushed underfoot by a rampaging cabal of war criminals with so much blood on their hands.
Remember Team Neo-Con invaded Iraq in 2003 claiming that the country possessed NBC (Nuclear, Biological & Chemical) weapons and intended to use them against America. But US weapons inspector, David Kay, appointed by Bush himself, found no evidence they existed as claimed. Then Bush claimed the invasion was sparked by Iraq's involvement in the WTC attack. But again, a US Senate investigation found this to be false. Then Bush repudiated an earlier declaration that the war wasn't about regime change; and said it was to liberate Iraqis from their tyrant.
So despite Team Neo-Con changing their reasons for an illegal war as often as they changed their underpants, surely, these child casualties understood America only wanted the best for them rather than their country's oil...
Photo: BBC/AP
And for recalcitrant and sceptical Iraqis, a little remedial instruction was all that was required. First, they were given time out to reconsider their politically incorrect views...
Photo: The New Yorker/AP
Then after time out to reconsider their politically incorrect views, cuddly puppies happily assisted these slow learners to mend their ways...
Photo: The New Yorker/AP
But of course, particularly naughty and extra slow learners needed firmer instruction. After all, as the good lord said, "Spare the rod and spoil the child..."
Photo: The Washington Post/AP
However, despite the best efforts of America's finest, some were truly incorrigible. Never mind, they were just despatched to the nearest cemetery with America's best "Have a nice day" hometown send off...
Photo: ABC/AP
Bringing democracy and freedom to darkened cities like Fallujah was also part of the good lord's work. So winning hearts and minds was ever so much more important than preserving material things like homes and businesses...
Photo: www.globalpolicy.org
Every so often, a little collateral damage occurred. And that was too bad. But it was a small price to pay because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the blood of the innocent and defenceless...
Photo: www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com
Today, many who still support Bush delude themselves into believing that people hate them for their stand on "democracy and freedom."
The reality is that people don't give a rat's brass razoo what Team Neo-Con does inside America. But when Bush's style of "democracy and freedom" is imposed upon non-Americans - whether they want it or not - why is it a surprise that some refuse to fall on bended knee in gratitude?
Rest in peace, victims of George W Bush and Team Neo-Con. You are remembered even though the world's beacon of Truth, Justice and the Neo-Con way cares not to do so.
Remember Team Neo-Con invaded Iraq in 2003 claiming that the country possessed NBC (Nuclear, Biological & Chemical) weapons and intended to use them against America. But US weapons inspector, David Kay, appointed by Bush himself, found no evidence they existed as claimed. Then Bush claimed the invasion was sparked by Iraq's involvement in the WTC attack. But again, a US Senate investigation found this to be false. Then Bush repudiated an earlier declaration that the war wasn't about regime change; and said it was to liberate Iraqis from their tyrant.
So despite Team Neo-Con changing their reasons for an illegal war as often as they changed their underpants, surely, these child casualties understood America only wanted the best for them rather than their country's oil...
Photo: BBC/AP
And for recalcitrant and sceptical Iraqis, a little remedial instruction was all that was required. First, they were given time out to reconsider their politically incorrect views...
Photo: The New Yorker/AP
Then after time out to reconsider their politically incorrect views, cuddly puppies happily assisted these slow learners to mend their ways...
Photo: The New Yorker/AP
But of course, particularly naughty and extra slow learners needed firmer instruction. After all, as the good lord said, "Spare the rod and spoil the child..."
Photo: The Washington Post/AP
However, despite the best efforts of America's finest, some were truly incorrigible. Never mind, they were just despatched to the nearest cemetery with America's best "Have a nice day" hometown send off...
Photo: ABC/AP
Bringing democracy and freedom to darkened cities like Fallujah was also part of the good lord's work. So winning hearts and minds was ever so much more important than preserving material things like homes and businesses...
Photo: www.globalpolicy.org
Every so often, a little collateral damage occurred. And that was too bad. But it was a small price to pay because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the blood of the innocent and defenceless...
Photo: www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com
Today, many who still support Bush delude themselves into believing that people hate them for their stand on "democracy and freedom."
The reality is that people don't give a rat's brass razoo what Team Neo-Con does inside America. But when Bush's style of "democracy and freedom" is imposed upon non-Americans - whether they want it or not - why is it a surprise that some refuse to fall on bended knee in gratitude?
Rest in peace, victims of George W Bush and Team Neo-Con. You are remembered even though the world's beacon of Truth, Justice and the Neo-Con way cares not to do so.
Labels: bush, democracy, freedom, iraq, nbc weapons, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, wmd, wtc attack
17 August 2006
Case for a multi-polar world
An oft-heard whine we hear from Team Neo-Con and its supporters is that the rest of the world refuses to fall on bended knee in obsequious gratitude for deliverance from the bad guys of the world. Team Neo-Con is right about the rest of the world having an aversion to genuflecting. But they are dead wrong about the reasons.
To understand the reasons, we need to go back to Team Neo-Con's holy day. 11th September 2001, is often quoted by many as "The Day the Whole World Changed." For the Bush regime, it gave them the opportunity to launch a crusade to smite those who were not with them in their holy mission to deliver us from the bad guys of the world. Of course, the irony of Team Neo-Con sounding an awful lot like the Islamic Fascists they wish to kill, is lost on these morons.
As an aside, the narcissistic pomposity of "The Day the Whole World Changed" grates on many as well. Anyway, let's try a little perspective calibration on this holy day of justification for Team Neo-Con...
1st September 1939
Germany invades Poland, thereby sparking WW2; in which about 56 million people died (vs 2,752 deaths in the WTC attack). Now that's what most people would regard as a world changing day.
20th March 2003
America invades Iraq in a pre-emptive strike to destroy non-existent NBC weapons. British medical journal The Lancet estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths. I'd say the whole world changed for these casualties and their families.
With just two simple examples, I wonder how far off the zero reading would the WTC attack register on the scale of calamitous events in world history?
In reality, the WTC attack simply provided justification for Team Neo-Con to accelerate transformation of the US from an admired nation to that of a rabid mongrel biting anyone not subscribing to Pax Americana's imperial agenda. If anything, I'd suggest a minor world changing day occurred not on 11th September 2001 but on 9th December 2000. That was when a Republican-dominated US Supreme Court stopped a statewide ballot recount in Florida; thereby giving the presidency and a free reign to terrorise, to Bush.
But I digress.
Bush supporters often love to ask if Bush critics prefer a world dominated by China. My answer to them is that they're asking the wrong question. The real question is whether we prefer a uni-polar or a multi-polar world?
You see, we have been proven wrong in assuming that a uni-polar world would be relatively peaceful, led by a benevolent hyper-power, the US. Under US "leadership," the invasion of Iraq scandalised and radicalised a good number of moderate Muslims sufficiently to move Islamic militants into the mainstream.
As the US government's own CIA has admitted many times, Iraq was not a centre of terrorism pre-invasion. But now it is. Iraq has also sparked off home-grown terrorism elsewhere in the world, despite the self-serving declarations to the contrary by Team Neo-Con's pet poodle Tony Blair. Excellent own goals, Einsteins!
So in the absence of a wise and benevolent hyper-power leading a uni-polar world, an infinitely better alternative is a multi-polar world. Greater independent assertiveness on the part of the EU, Russia, China and India will all help in ring fencing a rabid Team Neo-Con. And while these states cannot match the military might of Team Neo-Con, they do possess a reasonable degree of economic and financial leverage over the US.
Provided they are prepared to threaten economic mutually assured destruction, it's possible that the rabid mongrel may pause from biting everyone for a while. This is a lesser evil than the status quo.
To understand the reasons, we need to go back to Team Neo-Con's holy day. 11th September 2001, is often quoted by many as "The Day the Whole World Changed." For the Bush regime, it gave them the opportunity to launch a crusade to smite those who were not with them in their holy mission to deliver us from the bad guys of the world. Of course, the irony of Team Neo-Con sounding an awful lot like the Islamic Fascists they wish to kill, is lost on these morons.
As an aside, the narcissistic pomposity of "The Day the Whole World Changed" grates on many as well. Anyway, let's try a little perspective calibration on this holy day of justification for Team Neo-Con...
1st September 1939
Germany invades Poland, thereby sparking WW2; in which about 56 million people died (vs 2,752 deaths in the WTC attack). Now that's what most people would regard as a world changing day.
20th March 2003
America invades Iraq in a pre-emptive strike to destroy non-existent NBC weapons. British medical journal The Lancet estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths. I'd say the whole world changed for these casualties and their families.
With just two simple examples, I wonder how far off the zero reading would the WTC attack register on the scale of calamitous events in world history?
In reality, the WTC attack simply provided justification for Team Neo-Con to accelerate transformation of the US from an admired nation to that of a rabid mongrel biting anyone not subscribing to Pax Americana's imperial agenda. If anything, I'd suggest a minor world changing day occurred not on 11th September 2001 but on 9th December 2000. That was when a Republican-dominated US Supreme Court stopped a statewide ballot recount in Florida; thereby giving the presidency and a free reign to terrorise, to Bush.
But I digress.
Bush supporters often love to ask if Bush critics prefer a world dominated by China. My answer to them is that they're asking the wrong question. The real question is whether we prefer a uni-polar or a multi-polar world?
You see, we have been proven wrong in assuming that a uni-polar world would be relatively peaceful, led by a benevolent hyper-power, the US. Under US "leadership," the invasion of Iraq scandalised and radicalised a good number of moderate Muslims sufficiently to move Islamic militants into the mainstream.
As the US government's own CIA has admitted many times, Iraq was not a centre of terrorism pre-invasion. But now it is. Iraq has also sparked off home-grown terrorism elsewhere in the world, despite the self-serving declarations to the contrary by Team Neo-Con's pet poodle Tony Blair. Excellent own goals, Einsteins!
So in the absence of a wise and benevolent hyper-power leading a uni-polar world, an infinitely better alternative is a multi-polar world. Greater independent assertiveness on the part of the EU, Russia, China and India will all help in ring fencing a rabid Team Neo-Con. And while these states cannot match the military might of Team Neo-Con, they do possess a reasonable degree of economic and financial leverage over the US.
Provided they are prepared to threaten economic mutually assured destruction, it's possible that the rabid mongrel may pause from biting everyone for a while. This is a lesser evil than the status quo.
Labels: bush, china, iraq, islamic fascists, multi-polar, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, pax americana, uni-polar, wtc attack
